Jimmy Kimmel's suspension shows that dictators follow a playbook

SCREEN CAPTURE

Filipino American journalist Maria Ressa with Jon Stewart compare the attack on free speech.

All this talk about free speech spurred by the Jimmy Kimmel suspension  is starting to look uncomfortably familiar.

One of the highlights of my journalism career is when I learned that I was among the journalists with an arrest warrant issued by the government of Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos. I was so proud.

As managing editor of the San Francisco-based Philippine News my name was included along with PhilNews publisher Alex Esclamado and the other editors of the Filipino American weekly. The newspaper was noted for its strong anti-Marcos stance amid the coverage of Filipinos in the US, from baby births, weddings to discrimination against Filipino Americans and the Filipino-instigated Grape Strike.

But whatever we did at the newspaper, it was nothing when compared what our peers in the Philippines were experiencing under the strongman Marcos.

When Marcos declared martial law in 1972, he didn't just target political opponents. He went after something just as powerful: the free press. And he didn't do it quietly. He did it with a methodical, ruthless precision that left no room for dissent.

Here's the scary part, the stuff that should make you wake up at night because of what is happening in the US today under the Donald Trump dictatorship is uncomfortably similar.

In 1972, in Manila newsrooms, the lights went out.

It started in the dead of night, just as martial law was being declared. Marcos had his military forces shut down the biggest media outlets in the country: newspapers like the Manila Times, magazines like the Philippine Free Press, and even TV stations like ABS-CBN. Can you imagine? The Philippines press was noted as having one of the most vibrant journalism in Asia. One day, there was a vibrant, messy, free-wheeling, public conversation happening, and the next day, it's just gone. Poof.

The media void wasn't left empty for long. Marcos and his cronies—his buddies, his business partners—created their own media empire. Outlets like the Daily Express and the Bulletin Today popped up, and they all served the same master: Marcos. Their job wasn't to inform. It was to glorify. They sold the "New Society" myth, painting a picture of progress and peace while the reality was far, far darker. It was a lie, and they were the ones who made sure you believed i

Journalists who dared to question the narrative were rounded up and thrown in jail. Sometimes, they were tortured. Some of them never came back. Marcos wasn't just killing the message; he was killing the messenger. 

Some of the most influential media figures at the time were immediately taken into custody. These included:

• Teodoro Locsin Sr., publisher of the Philippines Free Press
• Chino Roces, publisher of the Manila Times
• Eugenio Lopez Jr., owner of ABS-CBN
• Prominent writers Luis Beltran, Maximo Soliven, Amando Doronila, and Juan Mercado.
•  Many journalists were held in military stockades for years.
• 34 Filiilpino journalists were killed during the Marcos regime.

This is the playbook of every authoritarian regime. When you can't win an argument, you make sure no one is allowed to present a counter argument. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. Putin and X are doing it. And, Trump wants to do it. 

Emergence of the "Mosquito" press

But here's the thing about a good story—it finds a way to get out. A small, underground "mosquito press" emerged despite the censorship and Marcos' strongarm tactics. These brave individuals published their stories in secret, and their whispers became a chorus of defiance.

At the Philippine News, visitors from the Philippines would smuggle out these stories which the PhilNews reprinted. Then, we mailed the newspaper to key members of Congress and open-minded members of the media.

The legacy of Marcos's attack on the press lingers to this day. We still see echoes of his tactics in the way the media is threatened and attacked. But we also see the spirit of the mosquito press in those who continue to fight for the truth, no matter the cost.

Most recently, disgraced President Rolando Duterte tried to silence Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa and Rappler, the online news outlet she helped found in Manila. Ressa was hit with several arrest warrants and convicted of cyberlibel. In 2021, she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her defense of press freedom.

After ABC suspended Kimmel's show, Jon Stewart hosted Ressa on his Daily Show during which Ressa told Stewart, "I told you so."

In an earlier interview Ressa issued a warning that the US was in danger of following the Philippines during Duterte's rule including legal harassment, arrests, revoking licenses.

In that earlier interview, Stewart countered that the institutions in the US were more stable and the bullying of a free press could not possibly happen here. Sadly, he was wrong and that's why he invited Ressa back to his show. 

Comedian Jimmy Kimmel returned to his show Tuesday.

Kimmel reinstated

Although Disney CEO Bob Iger allowed Kimmel to return to ABC today, the Trump threat to media outlets remains. Sinclair and Nexstar, which together own about 20% of the ABC affiliates, said they would still not air Kimmel's show on their stations.

Although not well known by the general public, the Kimmel situation brought them into the spotlight exposing their undue influence in the information industry and disproves the GOP assertion of the so-called "liberal "leanings of mainstream media. If they are successful in having the FCC approve their expansion, the two corporations operate hundreds of television outlets and thus control the direction of news dissemination and our national conversation.

In his opening monologue Tuesday evening, an emotional Kimmel thanks his supporters in the entertainment industry and the thousands of ordinary Americans who were angry at Trump's attack on the First Amendment. 

"But I don't wanna make this about me because — and I know this is what people say when they make things about them — but I really, this show is not important," said Kimmel.

"What is important is that we get to live in a country that allows us to have a show like this. I've had the opportunity to meet and spend time with comedians and talk show hosts from countries like Russia and countries in the Middle East who tell me they would get thrown in prison for making fun of those in power, and worse than being thrown in prison. They know how lucky we are here. Our freedom to speak is what they admire most about this country."

"We have to speak out against this bully," Kimmel warned. "He’s not stopping. And it’s not just comedy. He's gunning for our journalists, too. He's suing them, he's bullying them."

The intense outcry against ABC and the Disney Corporation saved Kimmel, this time. But Trump, Carr and his FCC said that this won't be the last attack against free speech.

The dismantling of America's free press is happening right before our eyes in real time. Yesterday they went after Steve Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel. Tomorrow it could be Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers or the all-woman panel of The View, all critics of the Trump regime.

"I think we're going to test ABC out on this. Let's see how we do. Last time I went after them, they gave me $16 Million," Trump said in reference to the network settling his lawsuit over comments made by anchor George Stephanopoulos.

Trump, like dictator Marcos, systematically works to undermine public trust in journalists and media institutions that published critical reports. 

Trump popularized terms like "fake news" and repeatedly called the media "enemy of the people" to label unfavorable press coverage and outlets. What that constant barrage of negativity does is erode public trust in one of America's institutions and creates an environment of chaos. 

Democracy needs an informed citizenry in order for it to work. It is incumbent on us educate ourselves by continuing to demand and fight for a free press. As ABC and Disney has learned from the pressure they received in temporarily silencing Kimmel, the American public demands a free press, an essential weapon to fight corporate complicity. and authoritarianism.

So beware. The Jimmy Kimmel episode is only Round One.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge. 

• 
  

accusations of “fake news” and flooding the information void with manufactured news, lies and their own twisted version of "fake news." 

 So, remember this: the freedom to speak is a muscle you have to exercise. If you let it atrophy, you'll find it's too late to use it when you need it most.

Free press is under attack in the Philippines

MAY 3rd was World Press Freedom Day.  In order for democracy to work, it is important to remind people about the role of a free press in a democracy: to inform the citizenry, to question the powerful and ensure government is working for the people.

One of the first things Philippine strong man Rodrigo Duterte did when he took office almost two years ago was to attack one of the strongest, free-wheeling  and aggressive media in Asia, if not in the world.

"Just because you're a journalist you are not exempted from assassination, if you're a son of a bitch," Duterte said when asked how he would address the problem of media killings in the Philippines. Duterte is not known for his subtlety.

At least 85 cases of attacks and threats against the press during the first 22 months of Duterte’s administration, according to a report released by the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), Philippine Press Institute (PPI), and Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) during the presentation on the current situation of Philippine press at the “Speak Truth to Power, Keep Power in Check” forum in Quezon City on World Press Freedom Day.

Since Duterte became president, attacks on members of the media have inicreased. The attacks include 9 murders, 16 libel cases, 14 cases of online harassment, 11 death threats, 6 slay attempts, 6 cases of harassment, 5 cases of intimidation, 4 cases of website attacks, revoked registration or denied franchise renewal, verbal abuse, strafing, and police surveillance of journalists and media agencies.

Nne journalists have been killed during Duterte's term, thus far. They were killed in the course of their work, or because of their work. The list does not include journalists who were killed for other reasons.

1. Larry Que, publisher and columnist, Catanduanes News Now
2. Leodoro Diaz, tabloid columnist, Sapol
3. Marlon Muyco, radio journalist, dxNDRadyoBida
4. Rudy Alicaway, radio journalist, dxPB
5. Edmund Sestoso, broadcaster and former chairman of NUJP, dGB 91.7 FM
6. Mario Cantaoi, radio journalist, dzNS
7. Christopher Lozada, radio journalist, dxBF
8. Joaquin Briones, columnist, Remate
9. Apolinario Suan Jr, radio journalist, Real FM

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte
clamps down on critical media.

The Philippines is one of the world's deadliest countries for journalists according to report from Reporters Without Borders.

The following is a pooled editorial of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, and the Philippine Press Institute published in Rappler.

* * *

Rodrigo R. Duterte’s presidency has altered and controlled the public discourse so radically in its favor in ways rude and bold. One tragic result: it has restricted and narrowed the celebrated freedom of the Philippine press and the people’s cherished right to know.

In his first 22 months in power, Mr Duterte has earned the dubious honor of logging 85 various cases of attacks and threats on these dual values that the Constitution upholds as inalienable rights of the citizens. The number far exceeds those recorded under 4 presidents before him.

Separately and together, these 85 cases have made the practice of journalism an even more dangerous endeavor under Duterte.

From June 30, 2016 to May 1, 2018, these cases include the killing of 9 journalists, 16 libel cases, 14 cases of online harassment, 11 death threats, 6 slay attempts, 6 cases of harassment, 5 cases of intimidation, 4 cases of website attack, revoked registration or denied franchise renewal, verbal abuse, strafing, and police surveillance of journalists and media agencies.

These cases project the force of presidential power dominating the political sphere, with zealous support from Duterte allies and appointees, and their sponsored disinformation army online and off. They have hurled at members of the press insults and unfair labels, and allegations of corruption and misconduct without firm basis in fact or in law.

These cases linger amid effete efforts at solution by state agencies, and in the context of the hostile and vicious discourse against the administration's critics and the critical media.

RELATED: Philippines investigate role of Cambridge Analytica with Duterte's 'popularity'

The President, Cabinet members, and the House of Representatives have imposed and proposed unprecedented restrictions on journalist access to official news events. Congress and executive agencies have denied or delayed the corporate registration or franchises required for operation of media companies.

Some journalists and media groups have also reported police surveillance of their movement and their places of work.

Attacks on press freedom diminish not just the news media. These weaken the capacity of the news media to sustain the people’s unfettered exchange of ideas about public issues. Presidential intolerance of criticism is now a well-established aspect of Duterte’s leadership. While he is not the only chief executive who has become sensitive to press criticism, Duterte has made sure that everyone understands that misfortunes could hound and befall his critics.

And yet Duterte had promised change; his government should thus tell the people when and where change has come to fruition, and whether it has triggered better or worse results. By keeping citizens and voters fully informed about what and how those they have raised to power are doing right or wrong, a free press sustains and strengthens democracy.

That is not quite the situation under Duterte as yet. Intimidated, restrained, and threatened with consequences, the news media have been significantly constrained to report well and fully on the war on drugs, the siege of Marawi, cases of alleged corruption in high office, questions about the wealth of the Duterte family, the public debate on Charter change and federalism, the shutdown of Boracay, and not the least significant, the incursions of China in the West Philippine Sea.

Rodrigo R. Duterte has brandished the power of fear. His threats and attacks bear the full weight of his office, the highest in the land. No need to test constitutional limits. All he seems to want to do is to make enough journalists understand that they should be very afraid.

But, like fear, courage could be contagious. And unlike fear that disempowers, courage built on the power of truth and the unity of all in media is a force that empowers.

To stand firm and to stand united for press freedom and democracy, to speak truth to power and to keep power in check – this much the press owes the people. And whoever is president, the paramount duty of a free press in a democracy is to defend and uphold the people's right to know, with unqualified courage and unity.

* * *

Using the power of his office, Duterte has come down hard on the news outlet Rappler, which has bravely endured the wrath of the president and the biggest newspaper in the Philippines, The Daily Inquirer. Both outlets are still feeling the pressure but it is the smaller Rappler that has been most affected by Duterte's efforts to silent his critics.

Since February, the government has blacklisted Rappler reporters from covering Malacanang Palace. In March, the governmentcharged Rappler with tax evasion and libel. An ongoing Philippines Securities and Exchange Commission investigation of the new outlet's ownership structure could result in the outlet’s closure.
Through the numerous attacks, the courageous staff of Rappler continues to write the truth, question the powerful and make the  authorities accountable. Rappler is appealing to its readers:

When Power insists, "you're either with us or against us," the space for a diversity of voices and ideas shrinks. 

When hate and anger are weaponized, it creates a spiral of silence. 

When critical questions are simplistically equated with an anti-government agenda, it requires courage to hold decision-makers accountable. 

We launched Rappler in 2012 to marry the highest standards of journalism with technology to strengthen Philippine democracy. 

We don't want to just give you the news; we aim to promote critical thinking, self-reflection, and empathy to encourage informed decision-making. 

Help us stay free and independent of political pressure.

If you want to help press freedom in the Philippines, click here.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Troubling fallout from Asian American band's legal victory

The Slants' Supreme Court victory spur trademark applications for racial slurs.

ASAM NEWS

AFTER AN Asian/American band won a U.S. Supreme Court victory to trademark their controversial name in June, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has received applications for trademarking other derogatory terms such as the n-word, the Vox reports.
The Portland, Oregon-based Slants won their landmark case after they were rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office because their name was deemed offensive. The Slants said they use the name to reclaim the slur and represent the rights of marginalized communities in the U.S.

“We had called ourselves the Slants as a way of seizing control of a racial slur, turning it on its head and draining its venom,” frontman Simon Tam wrote in a New York Times op-ed.

RELATED: The Slants get to keep its name

The trademark office has since received a total of seven applications for versions of the n-word and one with a Chinese slur and emblem of the Nazi party.

Two entrepreneurs who applied for trademarking versions of the n-word claim it is an act of keeping it out of the hands of racist people, according to the Washington Post. Steve Maynard, an attorney in Alexandria, and Curtis Bordenave from Mississippi both applied for a trademark of the n-word after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Slants.

Bordenave wishes to use the word in “retail store services featuring clothing, books, music and general merchandise” to prevent groups from profiting off the word.

“If an individual organization tries to use it to gain finances for their organization . . . that is not something we think is right, we’re going to protect our mark,” Bordenave said to the Washington Post.

As a black male living in the South, Maynard was motivated to “censor” the word. He also filed to trademark the Nazi swastika.

“We hope to flood the market with T-shirts and clothing and end up opening up a discussion,” said Maynard.

###

Supreme Court will take up the case of the Asian/American rock band's controversial monicker

The Slants

By Louis Chan
REPRINTED FROM ASAM NEWS

THE SUPREME COURT agreed on Thursdsay (Sept. 29) to take on the First Amendment case involving the Asian/American rock group, The Slants.

The Portland-based group, The Slants, tried to trademark their name in 2011, but the federal Patent and Trademark office turned them down on ground their name was offensive, even racist.

The group sued, and after several defeats, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the rejection violated the group’s first amendment rights. The PTO appealed and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

RELATED: The court takes a different slant on band's name

The Obama administration is urging the high court to overturn the appeals court ruling. The government says the law "simply reflects Congress' judgment that the federal government should not affirmatively promote the use of racial slurs and other disparaging terms by granting the benefits of registration."

The administration also argues that the law does not restrict speech because the band is still free to use the name even without trademark protection.

On the other hand, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups have supported the Slants and the Redskins in their legal fights. The ACLU says the government can't withhold benefits just because it disagrees with the content of someone's speech.

"For us, the band name has always referred to our 'slant' on life as people of color, not the incorrect stereotype.," explained band spokesman Simon Tam. "We're social justice activists who have been fighting for equity for nearly a decade now. Unfortunately, the Trademark Office mischaracterized this work and presented our battle through the courts as opportunistic than for what it was: exposing their consistent oppression of minority voices."

RELATED: Slants oppose NFL Redskins name

The case is separate from a court case involving the team name for the NFL’s team in D.C. The PTO cancelled the Redskins trademark citing similar reasoning and the team is asking the Supreme Court to take up its case. The football team's case has not reached the judicial level  as the rock band's case and it is rare that the Supreme Court would agree to hear a case before it has gone through the appeal court system.

The band and the football team can continue using their preferred names even without trademark protection. But a trademark confers certain legal benefits, including the power to sue competitors that infringe the trademark.

Personally, (this is MY blog, after all) despite the band's reasonable explanation, I find the term offensive. Every time I hear the term, I think of all the times the term has been hurled at me, often with the gesture of pulling their eyes back, often with the accompanying chant, "Ching-chong, Chinaman." It still hurts. It is still offensive. I am sure I'm not the only Asian/American to have had this life-changing experience.

(Views from the Edge contributed to this report.)